The Court authorized the class action on the basis that it was arguable that Air Canada had deliberately violated the Act by reducing the volume of work sent to Aveos, knowing that this would cause it to cease operations.

In this case, by selling extended warranties to consumers on the premise that such warranties allow consumers to avoid having to pay repair costs once the manufacturer’s warranty expires, the proposed class actions alleged that retailers were misleading consumers because under the CPA they would probably still be covered by the legal warranty.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill 21 would bring significant change to the class proceedings regime in British Columbia. While these changes would have a number of effects, the most notable of these is that British Columbia would likely be viewed as a more attractive forum for multi-jurisdictional class proceedings especially in light of the fact that it remains to be a “no cost” regime. As a result, the number and size of class proceedings in British Columbia can be expected to increase.

Should the class representative fail to ensure the adequate conduct of the action, and more particularly in the context of abusive proceedings, the Court may take measures in order to ensure the orderly progress of the case, which could exceptionally go as far as making orders to replace the class representative.

It has been reported that a partial settlement may have been reached with Superfish, in a U.S. class action against both defendants. The settlement reportedly includes Superfish’s cooperation with the plaintiffs by disclosing over 2.8 million additional files and providing Superfish witnesses for a potential trial. The Canadian proposed class action is very much in its infancy. It remains to be seen how the class action will evolve in Canada.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently commented on the application of case-by-case privilege to documents created by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario through its investigative process. In particular, the decision in Philip Services Corp. v Deloitte & Touche demonstrates that such documents may be disclosed in civil proceedings in the absence of clear assurances of confidentiality.